Even more than that, they need to quantify thrust at a certain power levels
and airspeeds. Long, slow turning blades generate loads of thrust at low
speed, but are not at all suited for high speeds. The opposite is true for
small diameter blades.

KB


"Ernest Christley" wrote in message
. com...
patrick mitchel wrote:
http://users.skynet.be/nestofdragons/tam.htm Fortunately i can say i
have
nothing to gain in mentioning this thing but am curious what others
think...
Pat



I looked at the site. The FAQ says that the engineering firm didn't
understand why the traditional propeller used less power when the AC
motor was cranked to full power. I would be VERY careful of trusting any
statement from an aerodynamics company that can't understand a stalled
prop.

If they really wanted to look legitimate, they'd publish some figures
like "X pounds of thrust at Y rpm with a Z diameter prop", not stick it
on an ultralight and hope it flies. They already have the prop on a
motor. Stick it on a dolly and attach a fish scale. What are they
scared of?

Any flat blade will more air when given a little angle and spun fast
enough, but I don't think I'll be pulling the blades out of my house fan
to put on the front of my project.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber